Talk about obsolete units
- Thread starter Mr Mike
- Start date
royfellows
Well-known member
Mr Mike said:I was 70 in January and just come in from karate and doing an all day aikido on Sunday. Last weekend was dropping 100 ft pitches.
You can tell your 70, quoting pitches in ft !
yes, and how many other people on here actually understand pounds shillings and pence
OK try this
I am willing to sell you something for two Bob
How much will you have to give me?
You build a time machine and go back to 1957. You need to buy food. A stall is selling hot food for and indicated price of 1/6
What does this mean and how much would it be in modern currency?
Bottlebank
New member
Mr Mike said:I was 70 in January and just come in from karate and doing an all day aikido on Sunday. Last weekend was dropping 100 ft pitches.
You can tell your 70, quoting pitches in ft !
I've the advantage of being bilingual. For the first ten years of my life I worked in feet, inches and old money, and then on to metric and new money.
I'm only 51 years young, or old, depending on your point of view.
The obvious question is what on earth is an "all day aikido" and is this something I should be wary of when I get to the care home?
kay
Well-known member
royfellows said:yes, and how many other people on here actually understand pounds shillings and pence
It always bemused me - we spent our childhood happily counting in number systems to base 4 (farthings), 8 (pints), 12 (pennies), 14 (lbs), 16 (ozs), 20 (shillings), 24 (hours), 60 (secs and mins) - then, when computers started appearing as something the average scientist might use, and they decided that we should be taught binary - three quarters of the class found themselves totally flummoxed. (Or decided it wasn't anything that would ever be remotely useful to them, so they switched off).
Even today, some people are adamant that maths isn't something they need, and yet we're all trying for example to make decisions based on info such as "eating X will double your chance of Nasty Disease A".
royfellows
Well-known member
In my world of logic numbers are King
graham
New member
kay said:royfellows said:yes, and how many other people on here actually understand pounds shillings and pence
It always bemused me - we spent our childhood happily counting in number systems to base 4 (farthings), 8 (pints), 12 (pennies), 14 (lbs), 16 (ozs), 20 (shillings), 24 (hours), 60 (secs and mins) - then, when computers started appearing as something the average scientist might use, and they decided that we should be taught binary - three quarters of the class found themselves totally flummoxed. (Or decided it wasn't anything that would ever be remotely useful to them, so they switched off).
Even today, some people are adamant that maths isn't something they need, and yet we're all trying for example to make decisions based on info such as "eating X will double your chance of Nasty Disease A".
When I get to be Emperor, it will be mandatory for all journalists to pass an exam in statistics before getting their licence.
Hi kay, I didn't know that 14 was exactly divisible by 4 :tease:
But I remember the days of pre-decimal currency, you went to the pub say, and ordered a pint of bitter (1/8, two pints of dark ale (1/7 1/2), a rum and black (2/5), a coke (1/1) and three packets of crisp (5d each) and the poor guy behind the bar had to add it all up; when you went for the same again, as often as not the price was different.
But I remember the days of pre-decimal currency, you went to the pub say, and ordered a pint of bitter (1/8, two pints of dark ale (1/7 1/2), a rum and black (2/5), a coke (1/1) and three packets of crisp (5d each) and the poor guy behind the bar had to add it all up; when you went for the same again, as often as not the price was different.
kay
Well-known member
Fulk said:
Eh? How did you come to that conclusion from what I posted?
It's not surprising that most of the normally used number bases are multiples of 4, since dividing things into quarters is quite a frequently required operation. But I can think of several that aren't:
14 (lbs/stones)
3 (ft/yds)
22 (yds/chains)
7 (days/weeks)
OK, I agree that calling them number bases is stretching it a bit, since we used to (and still do) change base within the same system, eg we start by counting up our seconds 60 at a time (ie base 60), do the same for minutes, then switch to base 24 for counting hours.
That if anything makes it more bewildering the problems kids used to have getting their heads around binary. I guess it's one of those things that comes easily if you learn it by example in everyday life, but which gets complicated if you start to think about it. Like English grammar.
I continue to survey in feet and inches because these are the units I think in, but as a concession to modernity I draw up my plans using metric scales (1:50, 1:100, etc).
Some decades ago I went though a phase of drawing my plans of old metal mines in fathoms : inch scales (mostly 5fms, 10 fms or 20 fms to an inch) so as to match tracings of historic plans.
My drawer of scale rules has a very varied selection of historic engineering, architectural, land/mine surveying and OS scale rules (and metric ones) but occasionally I encounter historic plans that necessitate drawing dedicated scales on card.
Some decades ago I went though a phase of drawing my plans of old metal mines in fathoms : inch scales (mostly 5fms, 10 fms or 20 fms to an inch) so as to match tracings of historic plans.
My drawer of scale rules has a very varied selection of historic engineering, architectural, land/mine surveying and OS scale rules (and metric ones) but occasionally I encounter historic plans that necessitate drawing dedicated scales on card.
kay
Well-known member
Fulk said:
Ah ...
Normally we count to base 10, ie we have digits (0), 1 to 9, but when we get to one more than 9, we group them together out of the way as a "ten", then start counting another lot 1 to 9, (writing it as 11, 12, 13 and so on).
Some things we count to different bases, eg days ... once we get to 7 days, we can (although we don't always) lump them together as a week, and go on "a week and one day..." etc.
But despite all of us getting the hang of this, a lot of people freak out when taught about binary, base 2, where 11 means "one group of two plus 1", ie 3. (whereas in "normal" counting, 11 would mean "one group of 10 plus 1")
... I guess it's posts like this which give mathematicians a bad name :-[
graham
New member
robjones said:
The Priory Streamway in Poulnagree was originally surveyed in 'Steve's' and I remember we had to calibrate Steve when the data was first entered into Survex. This was back in about 1998. For reasons now low lost in the midst of time, that data appears to have been converted 'properly' into metres and re-entered into Compass, then imported from Compass into Therion in order to be used in the Therion .lox model of the area. Of course, whatever units you use to enter data into Compass, it stores the lengths as decimal feet.
Where would we be without computers ...
Interesting, this; we think that 100, say is special. Somebody who lives to be 100 is celebrated, a batsman bowled out on 99 would be fairly pissed of (even if his innings effectively won the match). But suppose we counted in 8s or 12s; then 100 (decimal) would be 144 (8s) (? am I right) or 84 (12s) ? totally non-memorable. Mind you, if anyone lived to be 100 (duodecimal) it would be quite something. Which puts into context all the crap about the millennium stuff ? there's nothing special about 2000 AD, even though it seems special on account of the way we count.
Why do we count in tens? Is it because we have ten digits on our hands, and our forebears ticked things off on their hands?
Why do we count in tens? Is it because we have ten digits on our hands, and our forebears ticked things off on their hands?
kay
Well-known member
Fulk said:
Yes, it seems that most early systems were based on 10s. But I seem to remember being taught that the Phoenicians counted in 60s - makes a lot of sense - 60 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5 - a lot more use than only being able to divide things between two people or between 5.
crickleymal
New member
Other way round I think. 100 in base 8 is 64, 100 in base 12 is 144Fulk said:
Presumably yes.
I can remember my mother saying that pounds, shillings and pence was better because 12 had more factors than 10. I still think she was wrong.
Roger W
Well-known member
I don't know about the factors... I still remember having to answer questions at school like :
How much does eight feet and nine inches of cloth cost if the price is four shillings and sevenpence halfpenny a yard?
I'm sure decimals are much easier. But chains and fathoms are much more interesting.
Now what on earth did we use to measure in versts?
How much does eight feet and nine inches of cloth cost if the price is four shillings and sevenpence halfpenny a yard?
I'm sure decimals are much easier. But chains and fathoms are much more interesting.
Now what on earth did we use to measure in versts?
kay
Well-known member
crickleymal said:
Fulk was saying that the number we know as 100 would, if written to base 8, be 144, ie 64 plus 4x8 plus 4. And to base 12 it would be 8x12 plus 4, ie 84.
The really nice thing about "old money" was the old money - at various times I found coins going back to George IV in my change, great excitement for a child of distinctly anorak tendencies, and the reason I know the dates of all the kings and queens from Victoria onwards.